SUO: Re: Conformance
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JV = John Velman
JV: On the other hand, it would be useful to have a clause -- possibly an
informative annex, rather than a normative clause -- describing how the
Upper Ontology can be used in support of a domain specific ontology.
JA: This would require the group to become familiar
with some of the domains of practice to which
they seek to dictionate.
JV: Yep. That's a good point, and a good reason to stick to creating
a "posh dictionary" as Matthew called it in another message.
Of course creating a "will be used" dictionary depends on
factors you've mentioned in another message.
Just to shift to other side of the fence,
many sins are covered by the word "posh".
Making a codebook of terminology is easy
in some disciplines, tougher in others,
but it's pure hell to pay if you go in
for interdisciplinary communication.
As a lifelong, confirmed, and constitutional generalist,
I know all the reasons why I will never be a specialist
at anything, but I have learned a bit about InterDys
barriers by tripping over and running smack dab into
not a few of them. "Integration Ain't Trivial" says
a paper of Awbrey^2.
So we are back to a problem that is even tougher than the ones from
the heydays of building "expert systems", namely, attracting a bunch
of specialists to an effort -- apparently with no funds to pay their
exorbital expert fees -- where they cannot help but to grind each
other's teeth against each other's chalkboards. The only other
way I can think of even to get them into the park is to provide
some sort of service in the mean times that would be worth it
to the more public-spirited of them, I mean, aside from giving
them first crack at dictating dictionaire dictionaries to others.
So, what might that be?
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤